Most of us think that education broadens an individual’s perspective and helps diminish racist attitudes. Prior studies have validated that conventional wisdom, but new research indicates just the opposite may be true. A study, co-authored by Rice sociologist Michael Emerson, shows that increased education of whites, in particular, may not only have little effect on eliminating prejudice, but it also may be one reason behind the rise of racial segregation in U.S. schools. Furthermore, higher-educated whites, regardless of their income, are more likely than less-educated whites to judge a school’s quality and base their school choice on its racial composition.

Black–white racial segregation has been on the rise in primary and secondary schools over the past decade. While whites, especially those who are highly educated, may express an interest in having their children attend integrated schools, in reality, they seek out schools that are racially segregated. In the study, researchers found, on average, that the greater the education of white parents, the more likely they will remove their children from public schools as the percentage of black students increases.

“We believed from prior studies that education has a significantly positive impact on racial attitudes,” says Emerson, the Allyn and Gladys Cline Professor of Sociology. “We found when studying behaviors, however, that acquiring more education is not a means of combating segregation. Education may broaden an individual’s world, but it also leads to greater negative sensitivity toward blacks’ presence in public schools.”

Emerson and research colleague David Sikkink, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame, know that income and other factors come into play in terms of school choice, but their study shows that, even after controlling for these variables, education has an unintended effect. Whites with more education place a greater emphasis on race when choosing a school for their children, while higher-educated African Americans do not consider race.

“I do believe that white people are being sincere when they claim that racial inequality is not a good thing and that they’d like to see it eliminated,” says Emerson. “However, they are caught in a social system in which their liberal attitudes about race aren’t reflected in their behavior.”

According to the researchers, part of this behavior is explained by the place and meaning of schooling for children of more-educated white parents. Degrees, for example, become status markers, regardless of income. Parents seek quality education for their children to ensure they are not hindered from achieving the “good life.” As earlier studies indicate, education is a key to social mobility and one of the most important forms of cultural capital.

Emerson and Sikkink cite earlier work on school choice in Philadelphia, where race was found to be a factor in whites’ evaluations of the quality of a school. Unlike blacks, who judged schools on the basis of such outcomes as their graduation rates and students’ test scores, whites initially eliminated any schools with a majority of black students before considering factors such as schools’ graduation rates.

When they analyzed a national data set of whites and non-Hispanic blacks to see if the level of their education would have an impact on their school choice, Emerson and Sikkink found a similar pattern. “Whites with higher levels of education still made school choices based on race,” explains Emerson, “while blacks did not.”

The researchers found that regardless of income, more-educated whites in their data set also lived in “whiter” neighborhoods than less-educated whites…

“Our study arrived at a very sad and profound conclusion,” says Emerson. “More formal education is not the answer to racial segregation in this country. Without a structure of laws requiring desegregation, it appears that segregation will continue to breed segregation.”

Titled “School Choice and Racial Residential Segregation in U.S. Schools: The Role of Parents’ Education,” the study will be published in an upcoming issue of Ethnic and Racial Studies.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

“I’m a highly educated white liberal and my kids go to a school that has very few blacks. How exactly does that make me a hypocrite?”

I dunno, maybe its because white liberals are the one busy cramming the joys of diversity down everyone’s throat? Just shows that for all of the denial of racial differences that’s out there, people usually know what the score is and act accordingly in their own personal lives.

But really this study is a waste on so many levels. It’s supposed to expose the inherent racism of well-to-do whites but it is merely evidence of parents looking out for the well being of their children. Majority black schools are plagued by violence and will likely offer a substandard education despite whatever academic reputation the school has.

Does anyone honestly think that asians or hispanics don’t cross black schools off the list if they have a choice? Hypocrisy is the respect vice pays to multicultural virtue. I wonder where this fellow Michael Emerson lives.

“I dunno, maybe its because white liberals are the one busy cramming the joys of diversity down everyone’s throat? Just shows that for all of the denial of racial differences that’s out there, people usually know what the score is and act accordingly in their own personal lives.”

Mainstream conservatives are no better. Most conservatives claim that “black culture” is to blame, when anyone with half a brain should realize that the low black IQ causes black culture to be so disgusting and anti-social.

Mainstream conservatives are just as full of crap as liberals when they mention school choice (i.e., vouchers) as a solution. All vouchers is going to do is flood private schools with blacks who will cause the academic environment to go into the toilet.

If you really wanted to see illegal immigration stopped immediately, there would be two easy laws that could make it happen overnight, and they both are linked to education.

Law 1. Make all private schooling illegal. Also make home-schooling illegal.

Law 2. Allow for cross-county busing of students to FORCE wealthy-white kids to go to school with poor minority students (my sociology professor in college called for this years ago). Thats right, BUS rich white kids for two hours if necessary so they can intergrate gang-ridden schools in urban areas.

There would be no exceptions. That means the daughters Bush would have went to school right beside project children (which I would have enjoyed greatly).

Steve, you would be ASTONISHED at how quickly the masses would immediately be calling for an end to all immigration… period. It would be amusing.

As you can see, I too get DISGUSTED with white liberals looking down their noses at everyone who questions the modern GOD of DIVERSITY while sending their precious children to all-white, or nearly all-white private schools, hiring tudors, and investing for their college educations and complaining about lower middle class parents moving out away from the underclass so their offspring has at least has a fighting chance at a somewhat decent education (that is also without physical bullying by large minority students).

In our city, the local alterna-newspaper never tires of making fun of those who live in “ring” counties around the great city and speaking of how they have “abandoned” our city and are culture-less rubes, all when the wealthy whites that run the paper ALL send their kids to private schools and live in high-rises downtown (what Ive been told) or expensive gated subdivisions (also what Ive been told). None, from what I hear, have a kid in a public metro school. But they want YOU to send your kids there with the gangs wearing their colors. It makes me sick.

I keep waiting for some good YouTube-style video surreptitiously recorded of course, that documents the intimidation of whites in minority-dominated middle and high schools. I will never forget talking online with a guy that went to a minority-dominated school that had some sort of “beat up a white kid day”. Most whites cut class that day, but he wasn’t allowed to. He got ganged up on and beat up, apparently for the hell of it. Could you imagine if this happened to one of the Kennedy’s?

As anyone who went to high school with half a brain knows, indimidation by the larger kids toward smaller ones outside their social cliques regularily takes place. Could you IMAGINE the hissy fit wealthy parents would have when their precious Johnny or Suzy came home with a broken nose because some large underclass kid(s) claimed they were “looking at me/us funny”? How they would decry racism, yet plead for private schools to be re-legalized so their own offspring could get away from these same people they proclaim such love for? I’ll never forget reading in our local newspaper that the majority of our teachers send their OWN kids to, you guessed it, private schools.

America has to be the world’s heavyweight champion of social hypocrisy. I’ll wager that NONE of the talking heads on TV that we see on FOX, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. has their own children in a minority-majority public school. Even the minority-anchors.

In 1977, when Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter arrived in Washington D.C. from Georgia, they had to subject their daughter Amy to a D.C. public school to prove they weren’t Southern racists.

But by 1993, when Billy and Hillary Clinton rolled into town from Arkansas, everybody who was anybody accepted that the D.C. public schools were awful (even if you had Secret Service bodyguards).

So when the Clintons enrolled Chelsea in an expensive Quaker private school, Sidwell Friends Academy, they didn’t pay a political price for their hypocrisy.

Howard Kurtz wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review in 1994:

“Equally revealing was media response to the Clintons’s announcement that they were sending their daughter, Chelsea, to Sidwell Friends, an $11,000-a-year private school in northwest Washington. When columnist Mark Shields praised Sidwell on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, he had to note that his children went there, as did Jim Lehrer’s and Judy Woodruff’s. Woodruff’s husband, Al Hunt, made a similar disclosure while defending Clinton on Capital Gang. Carl Rowan touted Sidwell on Inside Washington, pointing out that his grandchildren attended the school. Howard Fineman, whose daughter was in kindergarten at Sidwell, said he ‘shamelessly lobbied” the Clintons to choose the school.’”

“anyone with half a brain should realize that the low black IQ causes black culture to be so disgusting and anti-social.”

I think the truth is far less genetic-determinst – compare ‘black culture’ 50 years ago to today (incidentally, at the UK University I teach at the black students get markedly better grades than the whites & south-Asians. The joys of not having official affirmative action!). The schools are terrible because their post-60s left-liberal culture is wholly unsuited for educating black male students – indeed, most white male students also.

“So when the Clintons enrolled Chelsea in an expensive Quaker private school, Sidwell Friends Academy, they didn’t pay a political price for their hypocrisy.”

Steve, you are a fool.

What kind of schools did the Bush’s daughters go to? I will bet they were not schools with a large minority population.

The hypocracy exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Mainstream conservatives are just as afraid to talk about IQ as liberals are. Yet, when it comes to where they send their kids, they disregard all the PC bull crap.

The conservative “solutions” to poorly-performing minority schools are just as dumb as the liberal solutions.

Do you honestly think that school vouchers will do anything to fix the education system in this country? I don’t, and yet conservatives hold up “school choice” as the solution to the problem.

To restate the obvious, the people who call themselves ‘conservatives’ these days are for the most part neoconservatives — that is, mutated liberals. Hence the term ‘paleoconservative,’ for genuine conservatives. You can expect most traditional liberal foolishness to be present in the thinking of neoconservatives.

“I dunno, maybe its because white liberals are the one busy cramming the joys of diversity down everyone’s throat?”

I’m not sure what you mean by “cramming the joys of diversity down everyone’s throat.” What specific policies do “white liberals” endorse that are inconsistent — in principle — with sending one’s child to a majority white school?

Do you honestly think that school vouchers will do anything to fix the education system in this country? I don’t, and yet conservatives hold up “school choice” as the solution to the problem.

I’m not a conservative, but yes, school vouchers would do a lot to help schools. Most particularly it would dramatically improve education at the high end, and the low end; that is, it would improve education for high-IQ kids and blacks.

This is for two different reasons. At the high end, smart kids are currently not served that well. They sit there bored by a curriculum that’s way to slow for them. If they are lucky, their folks are rich and can send them to private school. but most smart kids aren’t rich; they sit in suburban public schools which are safe, and decent, but geared towards an IQ of 95. They’re in advanced track classes geared towards IQ of maybe 115. But the smart ones, with IQ 130, are bored. And they hate the environment.

At the low end, poor black kids sit in schools that cannot, for political reasons, enforce any discipline whatsoever. (Well, they can remove literal murderers, I think. Make that, “essentially no discipline”.) Teachers cannot really teach. Kids talk, and yell, during class. They form gangs and wear their colors. It’s lord of the flies. Few can learn in such an environment, and few do. Vouchers can break the teacher’s union monopoly. (Whether they will or not, depends on implementation.) Certainly (to take one example we’ve seen a lot recently), one important way that the KIPP schools succeed is that if you misbehave, you’re out. They maintain discipline in those schools.

It’s not a magic bullet. It would probably reduce school segregation somewhat, but only because we have nearly perfect segregation in many inner cities; the difference would not be that large. What it would do, is allow dramatic residential desegregation. That is, it would allow people with children to live in “vibrant” places even after the kids turn 5.

The following statement from the article is too simplistic for the reality of the situation:

“As earlier studies indicate, education is a key to social mobility and one of the most important forms of cultural capital.”

Not all research show this. Less schooled but more intelligent and risk taking individuals do well.

Also more education shows more conformity to social norms higher average intelligence and more diligence. Conformity tends, in this day, to push hard and competitively to schooling. Thus one would expect these more conforming (true believers) to push harder for better credentialed schools one way to judge a school that requires less effort than others is look at the racial makeup of the school.

My background tells me that always seeking the more challenging school might be a mistake for three reasons:

1. A good student in a bad school can sometimes really shine (valedictorian). 2. Teachers in schools where most students are not interested in learning may be willing to spend lots of time with the few who want to learn. 3. Less homework levels more time for the real learning in the students area of interest, if he has one.

The down side to a less challenging more racially mixed school would be the hostility that a white student might endure.

BTW School is as much a test of who is qualified as it is and educating institution. Economist Richard Vedder has done some interesting work in this area.

In fact one of the pitfalls of for profit education is that it is often a rip off despite the fact that it does education the student because it does not provide respected credentials (if you are making a profit on a student you are unlikely flunk him out.). Vedder proposes separating schooling and credentialing. Students would pay for the schooling and employers would pay for the credentialing. Schooling benefits the student, credentialing the employer.

BTW IMO education is so much broader than schooling that I like to use the word schooling in place of the word education where appropriate.

Consider this the typical USA school spends about $8,000/year to educate a student. My grandparents went to school for one year and could read and write and do arithmetic and they saved up money and bought and ran a successful barbershop. Also Michael Faraday never went to school, Thomas Edison when to just a little elementary school before being thrown out.

So is it hard to imagine the some of our less schooling inclined students would be better off leaving school after the 3rd grade and apprenticing and then receiving the money that would have been spent (maybe say $150,000 with interest) on their schooling as an investment in their Auto repair shop or carpenter tools or their home in place of the schooling, which is often les than useless to them.

Emerson and research colleague David Sikkink, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame, know that income and other factors come into play in terms of school choice, but their study shows that, even after controlling for these variables, education has an unintended effect.

What other factors? Like school performance in exams results, level of discipline, etc.? Because such factors are the reasons why wealthier whites don’t send their children to sink schools. So isn’t this study guilty of not identifying the presence of minorities with lower standards of education?

“What specific policies do ‘white liberals’ endorse that are inconsistent — in principle — with sending one’s child to a majority white school?”

White liberals typically preach that racial diversity is beneficial and support policies such as massive third world immigration that increase racial diversity in their home countries. Yet they insulate their children from the very diversity they are creating by sending their children to racially homogenous or nearly racially homogenous schools. This doesn’t make sense. If racial diversity is beneficial, then why wouldn’t you want your own children to experience it from the earliest possible age? On the other hand, if racial diversity is something that you chose to insulate your own children from, why are you promoting a culture that forces it on other people’s children?

Granted, white liberals may say they are not insulating their children from racial diversity per se, just a lot of the dysfunction that, for whatever reason, one tends to find in majority-minority schools. The race of the students, they would argue, is incidental. But here we have another contradiction. If it is more important to you as a parent to send your children to a high-quality school than it is to send your child to a racially diverse school, then obviously experiencing racial diversity is not the highest priority you set for your family. So why do so many white librals treat it as the nation’s highest priority–or at least, a higher priority than maintaining a common culture and identity?

“What specific policies do ‘white liberals’ endorse that are inconsistent — in principle — with sending one’s child to a majority white school?”

White liberals who say they think affirmative action is necessary for diversity reasons, and that diversity trumps merit (2.9 avg. black science GPAs for med students vs. 3.7 for whites, for example), are hypocrites if they look only at the *merits* of their children’s schools. They should be looking at schools with “sufficient” numbers of minorities. Specifically black and Hispanics.

They’re hypocrites if they call conservatives racists when they make decisions based on race as well.

They’re hypocrites if they’re like the professors who testified for bussing (where public schools get no choice of what is bussed into them) yet sent their kids to private school.

They’re hypocrites if they decry gated communities yet live in 90%+ white, upperclass communities themselves. Just because there aren’t gates doesn’t mean it isn’t insulated.

Anonymous, it’s not hypocritical to have different goals for different entities. Your family and the nation are different things. A goal that is appropriate for a family may not be appropriate for a nation.

As an example, consider religion. Many people want to proselytize their kids into their own religion, but they’d be appalled at a national establishment of religion.

That’s not hypocrisy.

As for what liberals want, in my experience they really do want their kids to “experience diversity”. What that means to them is racial diversity, and religious, and ethnic foods, and many other things; but not things they take seriously. To them race is skin-deep, and thus, not a serious thing. Same with religion, which they don’t really believe.

However, violence, and also certain narrow aspects of black culture (such as the misogyny in rap) are things they do take seriously. And they do not want their kids anywhere near them.

As for this study, it does not show hypocrisy either, at least not necessarily. A lot of people want both diversity and security, for themselves and their children. That having both may not be possible is an idea of the evilcon right, not the liberals.

“However, violence, and also certain narrow aspects of black culture (such as the misogyny in rap) are things they do take seriously. And they do not want their kids anywhere near them.”

It is very much hypocritical if someone testifies (and this has happened over and over) that neighborhoods should experience forced bussing from minority areas that DO have that aspect of black culture when they themselves are rich enough to make sure they do not experience them.

“As an example, consider religion. Many people want to proselytize their kids into their own religion, but they’d be appalled at a national establishment of religion.” But many (no, not all) liberals want the rest of the nation to be forced into the “establishment” if you will, of diversity, including the bad aspects, while they themselves are not. It’s the exact reverse of your example: they want to tell EVERYONE ELSE what to do. If they want diversity, they should do it for themselves, instead of forcing it on those who are not advocating it. Don’t tell me you can honestly say that someone who demands bussing for middle class white neighborhoods while they make sure their upper class white neighborhood is immune is not a hypocrite.

Like I said, when liberals make decisions based on race yet screech at other whites that saying black schools are violent or that black culture has flaws, they are hypocrites.

“..the less intelligent are at risk in buying wholesale the lies affluent whites disingeniously profess (eg the blacks in the study).”

Due to affirmative action as well as different major choices (ie: the average ethnic studies or sociology phd isn’t as smart as the average biochemistry phd), what you are saying is probably true to a certain extent, but maybe there is also another more powerfull reason well educated blacks don’t mind putting thier kids in majority black schools: thier kids don’t stick out as much like a sore thumb and get targeted for harrassment as much as white children. There is also a crummier disciplinary apparatus in bad urban schools, as well as in general less intolerance for anti-white racism.

excerpt:“The probability of a white being violently attacked is developed as a function of a neighborhood’s racial composition. It is shown to increase nonlinearly, approaching unity as a neighborhood becomes predominately black.”

“As for what liberals want, in my experience they really do want their kids to “experience diversity”. What that means to them is racial diversity, and religious, and ethnic foods, and many other things; but not things they take seriously. To them race is skin-deep, and thus, not a serious thing.”

If liberals believe “race is only skin-deep,” but they also want to have their children experience racial “diversity,” are you saying that liberals value racial diversity because they like to see different color skin? Is racial diversity an aesthetic virtue?

I suppose one could argue that liberals value racial diversity so that all may see that race is only skin-deep, but that would also imply that once people were to accept the premise, racial diversity would cease to have value.

But diversity is viewed, especially through the prism of affirmative action, as substantive diversity. It goes beyond merely exposing the majority culture to minorities, it supposedly enchances the educational experience by providing a multitude of viewpoints. How could it enchance the educational experience if race was skin-deep, if races were interchangeable? Maybe the left and Sailer do agree on something, race is real and race matters.

Highly educated whites garner – drumroll, please – higher incomes, and the corresponding higher standard of living. Might it be merely that people send their children to schools with others of their ilk?

Folks, it’s pretty simple. The more rarified the air, the lower the percentage of blacks you’ll find on the social strata. Less blacks = less black children in the schools.

“As an example, consider religion. Many people want to proselytize their kids into their own religion, but they’d be appalled at a national establishment of religion.”

I’m going to second the comment of the person who pointed out that liberals want to establish multiculturalism as some official national ideology, as is evidence in their suport for massive third world immigration.

There was never a national consensus in favor of massive third world immigration and the racial diversification of America. Both were pushed on the people of this country by the political and cultural elites. Why is it ok for liberals to indoctrinate other people’s children into their ideology of multiculturalism, but not ok for Catholics to indoctrinate other people’s children into Catholicism?

Another biased and self-serving headline! If you wanted to be accurate, instead of “Highly educated white liberals are hypocrites,” you would have said “Highly educated white people are hypocrites.” Unless, of course, you somehow believe that all highly-educated white people are liberals.

I don’t see anything about political beliefs in your description of the study, but I would venture to guess that self-described liberals are much less likely than self-described conservatives to make school choices based on race as described. You want to sneer at “white liberals,” but judging them by the actions of all highly-educated white people, many of whom are conservatives, seems wildly unfair to me.

Speaking personally, I am a highly-educated white liberal and my kids are in elite public school programs where they are among the very few white students. I will admit these programs have very few black students either; admission is competitive and the vast majority of the students are Asian-Americans. And yes, as one of those crazy liberals, I do value the diversity my children are exposed to in having friends from many cultures and religions as well as the excellent (and prestigious) education they are receiving.

You want to believe liberals are hypocrites because it makes you feel better about yourself, but liberals do make different life choices than conservatives do. Statistically speaking, we tend to choose different jobs, live in different places, and educate our children differently. Please don’t pretend we don’t.

“And yes, as one of those crazy liberals, I do value the diversity my children are exposed to in having friends from many cultures and religions as well as the excellent (and prestigious) education they are receiving.”

That’s fine for you and yours, Polly. But I think a lot of the desire people have to sneer at white liberals stems from the fact that your values are not our values, yet you have no compunctions about forcing them on us. This breeds anger.

I grew up in a racially diverse, upper-class neighborhood in New Jersey. My neighbors were Iranian on one side, and an Indian-Pakistani family on the other. Next door to them was a Russian Jewish family.

In retrospect, I can’t remember learning anything from my Jewish or Muslim friends that I couldn’t have learned from a white gentile. Right now, I am working at a majority (85%) black organization in Baltimore. I like my job, but again, I can’t think of anything I have learned from any of my black co-workers that I couldn’t have learned from a white person.

I think your use of the word prestigious to describe your children’s education is telling. Liberals like (carefully controlled) diversity because it is a mark of prestige to expose their children to it, not because it has any practical benefits. The problem is other people don’t really care about that. They just want their kids to be safe and they want to raise them in a country whose culture they recognize as their own. That’s difficult to do when your country is being transformed by millions of third-world immigrants with far higher crime rates than the native, middle class whites whose neighborhoods they are moving into.

Mainstream conservatives are just as afraid to talk about IQ as liberals are

The reason why mainstream conservatives are afraid to talk about IQ is because the liberals in the media would denounce them as racists. Mainstream conservatives will only be able to talk about IQ and race when the liberals accept that blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites.

Polly:“Highly educated white liberals are hypocrites,” you would have said “Highly educated white people are hypocrites.” AlV:Typically flawed ‘logic’ of liberal.Higly educated whites who admit there are racial differences in IQ and/or geneticaly predetermined behavioral patterns thus are not liberals and are not hypocrites, because they do not promote one option to other whites and oposite option to their family.

The violence is the thing. No parent wants his child to be assaulted just because he has light brown hair and green eyes. I have read that the proclivity towards violence has a lot to do with hormones, and blacks, both men and women, have more testosterone in their systems that either whites or asians. As you know, testeosterone, among other things, makes one aggressive and impulsive. This is not a plea for tolerance, just an effort to explain the bewildering propensity for blacks to launch unprovoked attacks on whites. Of course, I think that much of their “rage” is rooted in envy and jealousy, but whatever the cause, it must be denounced and punished whenever it appears. The probelm is that liberals (mostly Jews) foster this notion that blacks have a “right” to mistreat whites because of what was done to them in the past. (I might add that these same “liberals” promote as “authentic black culture” the most ignorant, anti-social, and violent segment of the black community. Why? Aren’t they the ones who want to “help” black people? So they help them by making no talent ex-drug dealers and gang members millionares.) In other words, I think that blacks are being used as “brown shirts” by those who want to degrade the culture, and humiliate and frighten whites into irrelevance.

mzappala, alv, I apologize for not seeing your comments sooner. I will respond anyway, in case you might happen to look in.

mzappala:But I think a lot of the desire people have to sneer at white liberals stems from the fact that your values are not our values, yet you have no compunctions about forcing them on us. This breeds anger.

Alas, we liberals have not had much success lately at forcing our values on anyone.

In retrospect, I can’t remember learning anything from my Jewish or Muslim friends that I couldn’t have learned from a white gentile. …I can’t think of anything I have learned from any of my black co-workers that I couldn’t have learned from a white person.

I can only say that my experience has been quite the contrary.

I think your use of the word prestigious to describe your children’s education is telling. Liberals like (carefully controlled) diversity because it is a mark of prestige to expose their children to it, not because it has any practical benefits.

This certainly does not apply in my case. The diversity in my children’s schools is by no means “controlled” – most would say that it is wildly out of control, since the elite programs (originally almost completely white, with a large Jewish component) have become 75-80% Asian. The schools have become LESS prestigious as a result, as white kids from high income, well-connected families have been replaced by lower income first-generation immigrants. But the quality of education and the test scores have gone up, because these kids are damned smart and damned hard-working. I consider them a far better influence on my children (a practical benefit) than the spoiled Jenna-and-Barbara types they would meet at the local elite private schools (which are even more prestigious than my kids’ programs despite having lower academic outcomes).

Perhaps it would be smarter of us to send our kids to those schools where they could get to know the “right” people and make valuable connections for the future, but since we are liberals we value education quality and diversity more than safety and social prestige.

I can’t prove it, but I have a strong impression that most of the white students at my kids’ schools are the children of liberals (or Democrats, anyway) while most of the white students at the nearly-all-white private schools we could send them to but don’t are the children of conservatives (Republicans). In other words, my experience tells me that both liberals and conservatives actually do live according to their own values.

They just want their kids to be safe and they want to raise them in a country whose culture they recognize as their own. That’s difficult to do when your country is being transformed by millions of third-world immigrants with far higher crime rates than the native, middle class whites whose neighborhoods they are moving into.

While I agree that encouraging immigration is something that liberals generally support, in practical terms we liberals have not had any ability to control immigration policy since 2000, and not much ability since 1994. Conservative business interests want cheap labor, and that is why we have the immigration policy we have.

alv:Higly educated whites who admit there are racial differences in IQ and/or geneticaly predetermined behavioral patterns thus are not liberals and are not hypocrites, because they do not promote one option to other whites and oposite option to their family.

I am a highly educated white and I certainly admit that there are racial differences in IQ in the US today (that is a fact), though I know nothing of any “genetically predetermined behavioral patterns” and I AM a liberal. I am also not a hypocrite (at least in this instance; I don’t claim universal virtue) because I have never and would never behave in the way described in the article, ruling out a school based on racial composition regardless of the academic quality or test scores. That seems quite illogical to me; I’d go for the best available education, period.

Obviously, one counter-example doesn’t disprove Mr. Sailer’s headline claim, but nor has he proved it. He cannot, unless he finds or performs a study that takes political beliefs into account as well as education levels. All I’m saying is that if you look at “wealthy whites” who live in “high-rises downtown and expensive gated communities” and send their children to mostly-white private schools, in my experience you’re looking at a bunch of Republicans.

Contact Steve Sailer

Email me at SteveSlr *at* aol*dot*com (make the obvious substitutions between the asterisks; you don’t have to capitalize an email address, I just included the capitals to make clear the logic — it’s my name without a space and without the vowels in “Sailer” that give so many people, especially irate commenters, trouble.)

iSteve Panhandling

Steve Sailer

I always appreciate my readers’ help, especially monetary. Here’s how you can help:

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.

Payments are not tax deductible.

Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Sixth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: “You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps.” You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphoneapp (Android and iPhone — the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google’s free Gmail email service. Here’s how to do it.